Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Parenting and Advocacy Tiny free-range giftie

Okay, so here's a new problem in my life. DD6.0 is finally taking advantage of permission to go out into the neighborhood without me. (We live in a housing complex with its own playground and pedestrian paths between the buildings, very safe.) This is freaking out a few of the other parents, who still keep a closer eye on their children who are older than my DD.

To make matters worse, DD is tiny, barely 5th %ile for both height and weight, so people assume she's younger than she is. And on top of that, she simply is more mature and responsible that some other kids her age, so I am giving her more freedom than a parent might reasonably give a different kid.

DD is experiencing some of this blowback herself. The other day she got stopped by a couple of well-meaning adults who didn't know her, who were freaking out that she was lost, even though she explained to them that she wasn't lost.

Then there's the whole angle of parental guilt. Any time you let your child explore new freedoms, you're taking a risk. DD is very strong willed, she rides her scooter like a maniac, and I know for a fact that she will break some of the rules I'm setting for her, such as how far she's allowed to go. (I remember doing this myself as a child.)

Anyone else got experience with free-ranging your gifties?

My son is 5.8 and I still don't let him play alone even in our own fenced-in backyard. So would not let him play outside by himself either. Living in a housing complex would probably make me even more worried than living in a suburbian subdivision. I let my kids explore as much as possible, we even unschool so they get a lot of freedoms but this is not one of them. Being gifties seems to make them be even more at risk (in general). Their curiosity trumps their sense of caution. Probably won't let them be out alone until I feel they are ready to be home alone too. Right now I might leave them home alone for the one minute it takes me to go get mail from the mailbox but that's about it.

I don't think this is really a gifted issue since some of our kids are mature and others are less so. More of a general parental-philosophy/zeitgeist issue. However, it will probably help you that your daughter is presumably well-spoken, and it sounds like she is not shy. I would role play this stuff with her so she can explain confidently that she is not lost, it is okay with you that she is doing this, etc.

I live in a very safe neighborhood myself where one can walk to the playground without ever crossing a street. Many parents let their kids out to play around 8 or so, but the kids are usually so busy you never see them except holidays. I let my kids go out to play by themselves about that age, they really weren't interested when they were younger. I was certainly letting my son walk to the bus stop (3+ blocks) away on his own by 3rd grade. Now that my son is 15 he bikes 2 miles to school and back on his own.

Not sure what you can say to other parents, as parents have gotten a lot more paranoid about this issue over the past 30 years. If they are older perhaps having them remember what they did when they were kids. I walked by myself to school in 1st grade, 3/4 of a mile of suburban streets.

Yeah, I agree this is a parenting issue rather than one of giftedness. It might also be the city where you live. In my city, I wouldn't be comfortable with the scenario you describe-- and my kids are considerably older than your daughter.

We let ours free range where they don't have to cross streets and luckily the nearby families do same.
Feeling lucky right now.

I'm one of these paranoid parents. I grew up completely free-frange out in the sticks and had several near-death experiences before moving away to a different town at age 6 & 1/2:

1) was hit twice by a car while riding a bicycle
2) got buried in snow while walking back home
3) almost drowned
4) while playing hide and seek, fell on a broken bottle and nearly bled to death

Given that my DD may have inherited my propensity for getting into trouble, I'm keeping her within my sight for a long, long time.

Sorry - no experience but just wanted to point out that it may be a legal/social services issue in many areas today. Some local housing complexes have a policy of contacting the police if its personnel encounters a young unsupervised child. At least you appear to know the other parents so there should not be a risk of a neighbor calling social services. Again, not passing judgment (to each her own) but just wanted to shed some light on your responses.

I am lucky in that the ds who wants to "free range" which in olden days was "ride my bike" or "go outside and play" happens to be tall for is age and has always looked older. And I send them both out together many times. Younger ds gets bored easily so doesn't stay out for very long. Once around the neighborhood and he is back in.

It is a parenting issue. I raise my kids to be very independent and I am not a fearful parent, but I am a careful one. We live in a very safe neighborhood. Yet I would never let a 6yr old "free range" alone. I wouldn't let my 10yr old off alone. I would let my 10yr old and 8yr old walk together to a specific location. It does not have to do with the intelligence of the child but the circumstances and people they may encounter. A child can take a chance on the monkey bars and if no one is around, not be able to get help. Child predators love "safe" places. The place is probably safe because parents watch their children and they are looking for the one who doesn't. That is the reality of the world we live in. Letting a 6yr old wander off your property alone might have you end up with a visit from child services.

Yeah, me too!

With regard to LOG being an issue - DS7 is constantly lost in his head. The other day he almost got hit by a car because he was lost in his head thinking about a quantum physics lecture he had just watched. I had to scream and push him out of the way. "But Mommy, I couldn't stop thinking about it."

He's not crossing the street by himself until he's 35.

There is a philosophy that says we should let our kids play in the traffic because a scraped knee will toughen them up. (I do not subscribe to this philosophy.)

My kids free-range, but we live in a suburban neighborhood where houses are spread out, not in a housing complex. The larger difference between the OP's situation and ours is that there all the kids in our neighborhood free-range and they all play together. My kids don't typically ever *want* to play alone outside - if they don't have sibs or friends to play with they usually hang out with me or inside reading or doing homework or something. I'm not sure what I would do if I had one child and the neighbor parents were telling me they thought I was being an unsafe parent by letting my child play alone outside when I was comfortable with it. The neighborhood dynamics sound very different than where we are - so I'm not sure what I'd do or feel, or how I'd handle it.

polarbear

Bear in mind, though, that even that kind of extreme of being out-of-touch with the world around them-- that's less LOG and more personality.

DD is very much hyperaware of her surroundings and threats therein-- and always has been. She's got terrific instincts to prevent being pickpocketed; most impressive for a non-urban childhood.

Free-ranging is probably mostly a matter of what seems normative in the setting in which one lives. Buck the trend (whatever it is) and you'll have others judging your parenting choices rather harshly, I'm afraid. Free-ranging is relatively popular here-- and we get labeled TigerParent/helicopter parents because we don't. Those are the major divisions locally, btw.

There's also a middle ground that says climbing trees is an acceptable risk.

IMO, free ranging is dependent on two factors: 1) how comfortable parents are with letting their kids free range and 2) is the environment in which the kid free ranges set up for that. In many cultures, including mine, free ranging is the standard practice. Everyone does it and there is an implicit understanding that one or more adults are watching the kids from a distance to jump in if needed. You always know all the kids on the block and which house they live in, who the parents are etc, even if you are not really on a first name basis with the parents. So when I go home to visit my parents, I feel very comfortable letting my dd4.5 play with the other kids without me being there. However, I could never let her do that here. I do let her play in the backyard as long as I keep an eye on her from inside. At the playground, I don't shadow her but sit at a distance and never lose sight of her. I do let her attempt to climb a tree or jump off a rock. It is okay if she gets a few bruises. However, I don't think I will ever let her free range in our safe suburban neighborhood when I know all parents are inside with no one watching. I would rather be extra cautious than let my child be hurt by someone.

Not letting them play alone in your own fenced back yard seems a bit limiting. I let mine play in our garden by themselves (7.0 and 4.11). I let the older scooter round the block to a friends while we drive sometimes but usually we walk with him (the road crossing is first so I do that with him first). I have let them play at the park across the road while I got tea on provided they stayed in the area i can see from the kitchen. I let them climb trees and ride bikes fast down hills etc but the must wear helmets every one they go on anything with wheels.

Having said that ds7 probably won't be allowed to walk to school until he attends the intermediate across the road from our house whereas ds4 could probably do it now.

I think individual circumstances of the location, your relationship with neighbours, presence of a neighbourhood watch service, time of day when your daughter would play independently, how far away you'd be, and your child's maturity are all critical factors that are beyond the scope of knowledge of most of us here.

We live in a busy downtown area. For our local environment, free ranging at 6 would be beyond irresponsible. (Think: letting a child loose in Times Square.)

I think it's important to be on the same page with the other adults in the area. If you are letting your child free range and 6 and they show up at a playground where other parents are supervising their children. The other parents might feel a bit put upon. They might end up resenting you, think you are expecting them to keep an eye on your child without asking.

In many US states it is illegal to leave a child under the age of, I think, 10 or 11 unsupervised by an adult. I was shocked when I last looked into it, because I was unsupervised at a much much younger age. If other parents report it, your child might be picked up by an officer at the playground or you may get a visit.

No judgement here. Just thought you would want to know.

Really?? Last time I looked into it there was no particular age for 48 out of 50 states for leaving a child at home. These kids of laws vary state to state in the U.S. We have a law in my city, about leaving anyone under 15 overnight. And this is different situation from playing in the park while you are home.

OK a quick look and I found this list. There are more laws now than the last time I looked into it.

http://www.latchkey-kids.com/latchkey-kids-age-limits.htm

Don't agree with the absolute don't leave a kid under 12 alone that this site mentions. I feel it depends on the maturity of the kid and depends on the situation. And it's a gradual thing. While I wouldn't leave a 10 year old home for hours, or while I was gone a long distance, or every day after school. I was certainly leaving my kids at home by 9 for 30 minutes while I ran to the store.

Very surprised by the 14 rule for Illinois. The law reads "Any minor under the age of 14 years whose parent or other person responsible for the minor’s welfare leaves the minor without supervision for an unreasonable period of time without regard for the mental or physical health, safety or welfare of that minor."

The term unreasonable period of time, is a bit vague.

I had a friend's daughter (age 16) stay with us for a few days last year while her parents took her older sister to college because of our state's law. DD was beyond excited so we were happy to play a host family but I thought it was an odd regulation. When I was 16, I was very much living on my own.

bluemagic ... you're right. Illinois is very vague. One of the reasons why I don't leave DS5.7 alone even in our own backyard. That plus we are next to a vacant lot so basically anyone could come up to the side of the yard and I'm just not comfortable with it. He's the kind of a kid who'll strike up a conversation with just about anyone willing to listing to him talking.

Figuring out how old to leave your child alone, or let them walk to school by themselves is really a case by case basis. And I think if you look into the details of most of these laws, they do reflex that kids can be left alone for longer & longer periods of time as they get older.

The web-site I linked to is talking out when it's OK to leave kids home alone after school. And around 12 seems to be the norm in my area. Most of the after school daycare programs stop at the end of 6th grade. The assumption being that most 7th graders (youngest ~11 3/4 yrs) can safely stay at home after school for a few hours.

I know 16 year old teenagers I wouldn't leave at home alone for even a few minutes, but 10 year old who cold be left along for hours.

Mana I'm not sure about what state your in but when I was looking I saw no state that makes it illegal to leave a 16 year old overnight. (14-15 seems a more normal cutoff) But that doesn't mean you don't have local rules. I could imagine leaving my 15 year old one night but not much longer.

Actually, I took their word for it and didn't bother to look it up even though I thought it was really odd. Anyway, I just googled and our state has NO laws on this whatsoever. Now I am wondering if they themselves were misinformed or if I misunderstood them but it'd be too awkward to ask now.

You learn something new everyday.

It is my understanding that state and local laws about child neglect may come into play, and these may vary in their specificity and be highly dependent upon the circumstances. For example: whether the child was harmed or faced danger of harm while unsupervised.

I wouldn't let my little one roam free - she will be 10 in a few months. She could find a way to get into trouble. Not only that, but as others have mentioned, if the kid looks younger than her age, someone may call the authorities on you. Kid finally doubled her BMI this year, so she is now 2nd percentile. She is both lightweight and short, looks like a 7 year old.

I would not leave my 16 year old home alone overnight. Nor would I leave my 18 year old home with the 16 and 9 year olds. Even if your kid doesn't do anything wrong, others may find out that the parents are gone. Many years ago a neighbor left their kid home alone - she was probably 17. She was a good kid, but she had a few friends over. These kids were fine, but others heard that the parents were gone, and tons of kids she did not know showed up. There was a racial incident on the front lawn.

When I was in HS, my boyfriend's parents left him home alone for the weekend, and he wrecked a very pricey sports car. Too difficult to explain here how he had access to a car of someone he didn't even know, and he was fortunate that he wasn't hurt and the car owner was cool about the whole thing. These kids went to good colleges and at least one went on to get a graduate degree from a respected university, so they weren't dumb kids.

Too many things could go wrong. I will let her play on the playground out of my sight at her sisters' sports tournaments, but only if multiple kids are involved. If something happens to one kid, another can go for help. A couple of years ago, she was playing with these kids (younger siblings of my older kids' teammates), and a kid sprained his ankle. My kid was able to go get help. And these tournament sites only have player families there - typically there are not random members of the public wandering onto the playground.

And finally, while my state does not seem to have a minimum age to be left home alone, I have seen plenty of cases on the news where parents were arrested for leaving them. Some were cases where the eldest seemed old enough to be home alone, but were left in charge of younger ones.

Interesting how different kids are. When I was 16, my parents travelled out of the country for two months and I was left in charge of paying the household bills.

My friends and I were often left overnight by the time we were my DD's age (almost 15). I can definitely remember my best friend and I being alone for a week as sophomores in high school, so 15yo.

Most of the people we know would find that unthinkable now-- or if they did do it, they would almost certainly be furtive about it and hope nobody found out.

Kids can do pretty stupid things no matter how closely adults think that they are watching, so I don't know that this is a completely valid line of reasoning, at least with teens. Oh, sure-- when your 7yo lugs gallons of household chemicals to the sidewalk, you ask questions. I get that. But when your teen offers vague information about where s/he is going to be for the next five or six hours, most parents accept it, ask if s/he has a cell phone, and hope for the best.


The bottom line is that very little can happen overnight that can't also happen during the day and during that five or six hours.

HK -- Indeed!

I think also our culture has largely forgotten that the job of parents is not just to care for children but to raise adults. Kids are not given opportunities to practice adulthood in small, low-stakes doses. The result is college students who flame out with too much alcohol and no decision-making skills. (Which I see on a regular basis.)

I'm sure many will be horrified to hear that I gave my child a hot-glue gun at age 5 1/2.

Umm,yes horrified. DH is wary when he uses stuff like that - though as an industrial engineer, he has seen the horrible outcomes (including one that involved him).

Yes, I'm sure the arts-and-crafts mini-gun I got my daughter is the same kind that caused an industrial accident with your husband.

Look, humans are really bad at risk assessment. We are transfixed by possible dangers that seem really vivid to us, and are extremely insensitive to information about actual probabilities.

Shall we just agree to disagree?

This is a really interesting discussion. Bringing up children is difficult and involves hard choices - let's acknowledge up front that there's no perfect answer.

I think part of what goes on is that there's no essential connection between the physical (for example) level of skill needed to do something, and the cognitive, emotional and societal skills needed to understand and manage the level of risk that results. One parenting philosophy (A) says that we don't let children do things until they are capable of understanding and managing the associated risks. Another (B) says that we let them do things when they can do them, and temporarily, we manage the risks for them. There is a theoretical other (C) which says that we just let them do things, and if they can't manage the risks then oh well - but I'm not sure anyone here is actually espousing that one!

Let's try not to react to (B) as though it were (C). I'm willing to bet MegMeg's child had no idea how dangerous the hot glue gun could be, at 5.5, and also that MegMeg supervised closely enough that the risk of anything bad happening was nevertheless very low.

I can certainly say that I let my 3yo use a sharp kitchen knife to cut cucumber with, as soon as he was willing, but, although he probably didn't realise it, I was right there - not so much ready to pull the knife away if he misguided it, because that would have required superhuman reaction speed and in any case wasn't the important risk, but rather, ready to redirect or stop him if he showed any sign of using the knife in any way other than the way required to cut cucumber.

I did this - and generally, I espouse (B) parenting - because waiting till children completely understand and manage risks before you let them do anything that invokes those risks seems impractical; when I look at DS's 10yo friends who have never used a sharp knife and never cooked over a flame and never been outside without an adult watching them, it seems to me that I see people who (a) have too much to learn all at once and (b) have built up an image of themselves as people who need to be looked after.

Sometimes it's not possible to let children acquire skills and simultaneously shield them from all associated risks. Then one has to choose. I worry, and analyse and reanalyse risks, and come down on one side or the other, in such cases. But there's no perfect answer in such cases: there's a cost either way. I too see 18yos arrive at university lacking skills they need at that point, and struggling to learn them too late. And I know that I as an 18yo still lacked full understanding of and ability to manage the risks I was running - to some extent I just had to learn them alone.

It's not entirely clear how this relates to the above, but something that shook me badly recently was hearing that the 16/17yo son of an acquaintance of mine had been killed in a car accident. The shocking part was that he had written off his own car the day before, in an accident which was known to be his own fault. His mother had tweeted about her relief that he and the other driver were OK, and that he wasn't going to be driving again for a while. But the next day, in fact, he drove the family car to school - and was killed. (Those are the bald facts. I don't know anything about the decision making process that lies behind them. For me the lesson comes from imagining it, and it doesn't really matter whether what I imagine is or isn't true.)

I think perhaps that why this comes to mind is something like this. One advantage of bringing your children up to be relatively self-reliant is that it's convenient. It's nice when your kids can get their own lunch, don't mind being left for an evening, and doubtless in due course, can drive themselves to school. But to get to that point as a parent doing (B) often requires more investment of effort than is required for either (A) or (C). It was harder for me to watch with alertness while my 3yo cut his own cucumber slices than it would have been either to do it myself (A) or leave him to it (C). And it was crucial that I was prepared to step in if it turned out that I'd misjudged and he wasn't ready to do it sensibly himself. Of course I now reap the benefit of being able to say "Help yourself to lunch" while I do something else! But there is an ever-present danger of complacency: one can get too used to things being easy, and a child who takes risks they don't understand does require someone to be conscious of that, because they may not be.

Not trying to pick a fight. And while it wasn't a glue gun, it was one of the more innocuous items in the factory.

I am actually much calmer with the stuff my youngest does. My older two complain that I let her do stuff that I never let them do. Of course, now that eldest is off at college, who knows what she is doing...probably don't want to know everything.

But back to the original discussion, I think that if the kid looks young, I would worry about what others think. I know middle kid got some comments on stuff she was reading when she was about 12, because it would not have been appropriate for an eight year old (which folks guessed as her age). That and the fact that we have a guy on our street charged with trying to hook up with a 14 year old - and I never would have guessed him to be a predator.

We did let our eldest fly down to FL with twins she knows, to meet up with the sister of these kids, and they spent a week on their own (and mine flew back on her own). So I don't always hover over them (though I admit I sometimes do).

Colinsmum, we never gave DD a hot glue gun at that age. Nope-- we gave her eye and ear protection and a shot at the scroll saw instead. We also were supervising-- much the way that the cucumber slicing anecdote reveals.

In all seriousness, ITA with


It's when you get complacent about real risk levels that (IME) you get injured. Being immured to the risk is the problem, in most instances of rational risk-taking. No, I'm not talking about letting a five year old build a zip-line in a concrete back yard and ride it with no protective gear. Of course not.

But my DH and I neither one have ever suffered a work-related injury, not in our cumulative 60+ years of work around radiological/nuclear, biological/infectious, electrical, mechanical, chemical, fire/explosion and thermal hazards, some of them quite extreme. We've worked around explosives, around hi-vac systems that were old-school glass walls-of-doom, etc. Nary a problem.

Nope-- all of my injuries have been as a result of doing things that I just lost track of risk-- in my KITCHEN. Seriously. Burns, cuts, etc. Same with DH. He's never had a work accident or a woodshop one. It's the routine things that we do which are actually high-risk-- because we get complacent about those risks and we quit paying attention all the time.



This is the precise reason why people will drive rather than flying because flying scares them-- it's about the illusion of safety with a locus of control. Same thing applies here with kids. There's not much that is LIKELY to happen to my DD when she's not being supervised that I could (realistically) prevent happening to her when she IS.

It's all so very individual. I'll worry less about DD operating a motor vehicle in some respects than I did about her using a sharp chef's knife-- but that's because of her lack of muscle strength in her hands. She's VERY cautious and hypervigilant about her surroundings, which I anticipate will translate well into defensive driving skills.

Oops, sorry for the misattribution - will fix!

I find true wisdom in these posts. I would like to add one thought: Children aware that someone is investing effort in them, coaching them to become capable, while managing the risks... may also grow into adults who are comfortable with investing in the next generation... finding joy and meaning in taking responsibility for giving kids roots and wings (as the saying goes)... in the balance they deem appropriate for their child/ren.

No worries-- it is clearly the sort of thing which we WOULD have done. LOL.

Last year I broke my right thumb and had surgery on it. It was in a cast for 6 weeks, and another 4 weeks till I could use it for much. My son learned to do a LOT of useful things because I simply couldn't do them. Chopping vegetables turned into his chore. He put up a set of lights outdoors, while I not so patiently watched him learn to use a hammer.

What a terrible tragedy. How heartbreaking, I feel very sorry for those parents.

Having had a teenager who had a car accident, I could see the reasoning behind letting the child take the car to school the next day. It would depend on the situation, but after having an accident it can often be useful to "get back on the horse" again and keep driving. If the accident was caused by something reckless, then I would not let my child drive for a while. But accidents do happen, it's a risk you have to take when decided to let your child learn to drive. And yes as a parent you don't have to let your under 18 year old learn to drive. I know more and more kids who wait till they are 18 to learn to drive.

In my daughter case her accident really scared her, she misjudged a unprotected left turn into her H.S. parking lot while going to an after school event. No one was hurt but the car was completely disabled. (When I got to the scene there were 5 police cars.. freaked me out.) It was the kind of accident caused by inexperience. Our other car is a stick & she didn't know how to use it and she couldn't drive the rental. So she didn't drive for a week till the car was fixed and then for a a few weeks she went back to only driving when I was in the car.